Medical Marijuana, From Practical to Tactical: How the debate has lost compassion

          One recent report by the Rand Corporation was developed by their Rand Drug Policy Research Center. The title of the Report is called "Altered State: Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets." This report, and others that have built their arguments based on its findings, emphasize tactical reasons for thinking twice about supporting prop 19.  The practical purpose for voting to pass prop 215 or providing the legal protection for citizens that use marijuana as a medication came from, compassion. The practical thing to do was to vote "YES" for prop 215 because nature provided a variety of marijuana plants that alleviated the discomforts of people with ailments. That compassionate purpose has now been replaced by, tactical reasoning, or gaining tax revenues for the state. At least, tactics, is the emphasis of these reports and in the debates over this issue.   So, have Californians lost compassion? The polls indicate that support for prop 19 is holding but the narrative, which the media and the Rand Corporation prefer to repeat, is to concentrate on tactical reasoning, or collecting taxes, why? Lets get passed the obvious reason that the state needs revenue.

          The titled of the report is a play on a film titled Altered States, “…a 1980 American science fiction film adaptation of a novel of the same name by playwright and screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky. Edward Jessup (William Hurt) is a university professor of abnormal psychology who, while studying schizophrenia, begins to think that our other states of consciousness are as real as our waking states. Jessup begins experimenting with sensory-deprivation using a flotation tank, and he travels to Mexico to participate in what is apparently an Ayahuasca Ceremony.”
          “Banisteriopsis caapi, also known as Ayahuasca, Caapi or Yage, is a South American jungle vine of the family Malpighiaceae. It is used to prepare Ayahuasca, a decoction that has a long history of entheogenic uses as a medicine and "plant teacher" among the indigenous peoples of the Amazon Rainforest."

Marijuana ---  the Rand Corps warns against listening to the "plant Teacher."
        The title of the report suggests that legalization of Marijuana will alter the state of California physically and also alter our collective, civic conscious or sense of who we are as Californians, as individuals and as members of the Republic. The facts in these reports were created by information that is available to the public but not information that the DEA has or other government agencies have which may indicate alternative data.  That data, if released to the public, is a security risk.  When the Rand Corp creates reports like "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico: Would Legalizing Marijuana in California help" or "Altered State," that suggest that the sales of Mexican pot in California only amounts to 1.5 billion and not the $18 to $39 that others have estimated, their numbers (Rand Corps') are based on  obsolete data. The authors of these reports themselves admit that it is not possible to estimate the profits of the Mexican drug cartels.  The authors further admit that their study is limited to a small portion of the south-west and to a limited scope of information or data that the DEA or other law enforcement agency and government agencies feel the public is welcome to examine because the information was gathered using methods known to the general public or are not a security risk. Other secret methods with different data exist that the public does not have access to and neither does Rand Corp.

           Rands' report "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico: Would Legalizing Marijuana in California help" is based on the information established in “Altered State.” That tittle is a coded message warning the reader to think twice because the use of marijuana or a YES vote for prope  19, like the use of the sensory-deprivation tanks in the movie,  will eventually lead to the use of "Ayahuasca" or the decoction or hard drugs.  This implies the old "gateway drug" argument which falsely accuses the use of Marijuana as leading to "hard drugs."  California will be led down a dark path and is that what we want?

          The implication is also that the use of this herb is part of an abnormal state of being which comes from a mysterious place like the Amazon Rainforst.  In other words the legalization legislation is equated to the exotic mysterious and unknown dangers one finds in the rainforst which is not a natural environment for north Americans, specifically, those citizens that did not immigrate from tropical climates. People who normally immigrate from the tropical climates are not Euro-Americans and, so, a connection is implied between prop 19 and the exotic, rituals of racially different people.  This is pitting Euro-American citizens and non Euro-American citizens on a symbolic and real divide as far as this issue is concerned.

          In fact, The NAACP and Latino citizen organizations are supporting legalization or prop 19 because of the disproportionate amount of members from the African-American and the Latino community who are incarcerated on marijuana related issues. From the report that Rand put out recently one would not know that tid-bit of information. The League of United Latin American Citizens of California and the NAACP held a conference where Alice Huffman said that these two communities have been disproportionately populating the prisons for “having a joint” On the other side of the legalization Sheriff Lee Baca is concerned that our youth will suffer “memory loss” and suffer other health issues. Many Cannabis clubs are against prop 19 because Cities and counties will “over regulate” the growth, distribution, and sales according to George Mull of the California Cannabis Association. (channel 7 Eyewitness News, October 12).

          In equating the use of marijuana with sensory-deprivation and the inability to tell one reality from the other the authors of the Rand reports turned the use of Marijuana into the dangerous ritual of the dark, exotic, jungle other people.  Kilmer and his gang of trustees sculpt a report that targets the pressure points of fiscally conservative Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party and Independents who may lean towards favoring legalization and voting for this bill but only if it served the budgetary responsibilities of the state. It may not have been an intentional targeting, but, the effects of indicating that the price of pot is going to fall by eighty percent after legalization would scare the pants off of any fiscal conservative that hoped to bring in the pot dough to fill the municipal coffers.

         The chart below was the model of the world of post legalization of marijuana, its farming, processing, and distribution, as imagined by Kilmer and crew, but also sets a framework for how California leadership should think of the process of legalization. The model is based on the imagined sales of a grow house – like seen in the popular HBO program “Weeds” – where a grower fills the house with pot plants. The report that Rand Corp just released 

wants to provide a “…better understanding of how marijuana legalization in California could influence DTOs (Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations) revenues and the Violence in Mexico. We focus on gross revenues from export and distribution to wholesale markets near the southwestern U.S. border. DTOs also generate revenue from operations further down the distribution chain in the United States. It is difficult to assess how much they make from domestic (U.S.) distribution, and it is unclear how this would change post legalization because distribution would become legal only for one drug in one state.” P(3)
          The problem for the Rand Corps Group or the "RCG" is that they forgot to include the possibility that DTOs also have grow houses that are within the U.S. and networked into U.S. domestic gangland operations. Not to mention that domestic gangs setup grow houses for themselves too and sell the pot they grow legitimately through pot clubs.  The report assumes that DTOs and gangsters do not have the technical expertise to grow hydroponics or other indoor grown varieties: does anyone really believe that? Lets not forget that DTOs grow outdoor pot in California too: the RCG forgot that point.

        The idea that indoor pot is a better medication alternative than pot grown outside is an assumption. Sinsemilla grown in the tropical and sub-tropical areas of South-America are known to be very effective at relieving individuals of their ailments.  Outdoor pot grown in most places of California rivals or matches the quality of indoor pot or hybrid plants. The RCG failed to include this idea which indicates that their would continue to be a market for American outdoor Sinsemilla products.
           In fact, because of the tax regulatory scheme that the RCG suggest (taxing THC levels), the incentive will shift to grow less effective pot, that looks and smells like a hi-grade but patients have to smoke twice as much or more to feel the effects.  This watering down of pot is already happening. The cost to the patient will not drop while the THC levels of their medication does drop. What this leads to is the patient returning to the clubs more often because they've used up their medication/pot sooner.  This gives patients the impression that they are smoking more pot to become high more often, when in fact, they are smoking more pot to taken in an effective amount of THC.  This burns through their supply faster and brings the client back into the pot club to purchase the next round sooner. 

Rand uses an unrealistic model of  the anatopot agriculture to assess the effectiveness of Legalization

Lets look at the anatomy of the debate as of this date.

Proposition Nineteen --- or prop 19 is a “Hot button issue “ In California the bill is called the Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. The gist of the bill is as fallows,

A. It would make Marijuana legal to use for recreation but regulate and control the substance: just like Alcohol.

B. Because the U.S is the world largest consumer and one third of the citizens have used the herb for one reason or another we should start to control its use. Marijuana is healthier than alcohol and tobacco. The war on pot has failed, laws criminalizing marijuana have not worked and so laws legalizing it would put dangerous dealers out of business.

C. Money, the measure would tax pot like Alcohol and tobacco creating a flow of tax revenue for the state and create a legal regulatory framework for cultivation, distribution and sales.

Against or those apposing Prop 19 fear that the public safety is at stake or bus drivers, taxi drivers train operators, could drive under the influence on the job, employers would not be able to test for marijuana and employees could taking pot breaks. Advertising near schools, libraries and parks would send the wrong message to kids not to mention the loss of Federal grants to schools and fear that pot could be grown in backyards.  If the "no on prop 19" group think, that the state can not regulate the sale and distribution of pot then their same logic pertains to the sale and distribution of beer. This same group is quick to add that citizens should not compile their problems by legalizing pot, but, that assumes that people are not already using pot who want to use pot. The Rand Corporations' report based an increase in the use of pot by calculating the increase based on an analysis of cigarette use:

“there is no truly satisfying estimate of this “total price elasticity” in the marijuana literature. For, tobacco, the total elasticity is roughly 1.5 or 2 times as large as the participation elasticity (Harris and Chan, 1999: Chaloupka and Grossman, 1996; Hu st all., 1995 Lewit and Coate, 1981). Thus, in the absence of Marijuana-specific information, we multiply our participation elasticity -0.3 by 1.75 to proxy the total elasticity. After accounting for the possible income effect, we settle on a baseline total price elasticity of -0.54. (7)


        The lower price of "....pot will make kid smoke it because Marijuana is analogous to cigarettes? Cigarettes are an addictive substance while Marijuana is not and that fact is in the “marijuana literature.” (7)  
      
         The sale of Marijuana legally takes the illegal sale out of the hands of the drug dealer and the profits. Do we want people that need marijuana to buy it from drug dealers on the streets? Those individuals that currently smoke all the pot they want, because they can afford it, will not increase their use. Pot is  not the addictive substance that cigarettes are.  The state is not doing its job keeping beer away from kids but citizens decided long ago that it was up to the individual and their family to make the choice to stay away from using these substances. For this reason prohibition of alcohol was overturned: violence was reduced and taxes were collected.

          Opponents of prop 19 fear that people will be driving stoned and citizens are taking a tremendous risk because of the loopholes, Yes, the loopholes! This law is full of holes! Haven't you heard?
The law allows people to smoke pot before they get into their cars, no limits, no standards for what constitutes over the limit or under the influence. The Regulate Control, and Tax Cannabis (RCTC) or prop 19  legalizes the use of Marijuana for individuals over the age of twenty one, 21. According to Rand “In march 200 the DMV “changed its rules so participants in the medical-marijuana program could be issued a driver’s license; the restrictions imposed were the same faced by any other individual who is prescribed a psychological active drug” (Altered States, 26) Driving under the influence is against the law already and the appearance of the freeways will not change from what it appeared like today. So, lets drop that issue, please,  I hope the Main Stream Media is reading.

         Rand Corp presented their findings to the California Legislation, and highlighted the affects of marijuana consumption and budget issues related, so, lets look at some facts.

          One club in Oakland made up to 21 million dollars in sales, remember, that is just one club, and it paid 3 million in Taxes. The clubs in Oakland work with the city as partners instead of fighting each other like the status-quo in many other places expect these two parties to act. This industry has something to offer the cities that the drug cartel do not, control of the product, money and tax revenues. The RCG countered by calculating that the price of pot before sales tax will fall by eighty percent after legalization. However, those calculations are based on an imagined community. The presentation to the California State assembly by Beau Kilmer titled “Insights on the effects of Marijuana Legalization on Prices and Consumption” was a report that relied on the facts laid out in another report titled “Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence: Would Legalization In California Help,” which in turn is based on “Altered States.” What this means is that the California assembly was being presented a report emphasizing not to let the dangerous, mind altering rituals,  of exotic dark other people become law and change who we are as a state.
          The imagined “ grow house” of the Rand Corp. Group (RCGs) has a “production model where a 1,500 square foot residential house is essentially filled with hydroponics…” The plants are “…growing under artificial light, producing four harvest per year with a total yield of a little under 550 pound per year of sinsemilla. (Caulkins, 2010)” As a result of this study, Subha Ravindhran, of “Eyewitness News / HD” thought it was important to point out that Californians liked home grown pot, so, the Mexican drug cartels would hardly feel a thing “…regardless supporters of the measure are still rallying behind the prop…” This is a good example of how the media failed to read the report accurately. The report does suggest that drug lords will have to move their pot to other areas of the country where a black market for pot will still exist: that sounds right.

Why wouldn’t Californians want to vote for a proposition that moves crime and costs associated with a black market some where else?

Why would California turn into the exporter of pot after the bill is past but is not currently exporting pot to other states?  After all according to the RCG, only U.S., law abiding, citixens have the Capacity to grow indoor pot.

“Changes in the Mix of Types of Marijuana” is one subtitle of the Rand Corps' “Altered State” report that gives a clue to what is in store for marijuana users.

“Marijuana is consumed in many different forms that very in THC content, ranging from commercial grade (low potency) to domestic mid-grade to high-grade sinsemilla (higher potency), as well other variations. The price per gram is roughly proportional to the THC content(Gierginger, 1994). For example, DEA data show that sinsemilla has about 2.4 times the potency and is a little more than twice as expensive per unit weight as commercial grade(NIDA, 2008). A tax assessed on the weight of the Marijuana(e.g., $50 per once) is higher in terms of dollars per unit of THC or per hour of intoxication for lower-potency forms than for higher potency forms. (an alternative taxation strategy would be to place a tax on the THC itself [and, possibly, regulate its ratio to cannabidol and other components] to discourage the production of more-potent marijuana product; MacCoun, 2010a).” ( Altered States: Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets)

        So, the threat is to the quality of Marijuana and ability of marijuana to alivieate the discomforts of those that need to use pot. This RCG concept discourags the growth of plants with a high THC content  and incourages the sale of pot with low levels of THC. What the implication here is amounting to is that voting for this law will ruin the benefits that patients like about Marijuana, so, don’t vote for this law? Wait!

          Look again!, communities could tax the weight and leave the chemistry up to Mother Nature. What the RCG, and the mainstream media, forget is that proposition 215 was passed by voters that wanted to be compassionate and practical. The legislature, the media and the RCG have all forgotten to factor into their debate compassion. The law will allow people over twenty one to grow pot outside in their yards or in their homes and that will help bring the price down like the Rand Corporation agrees the price will fall. Mother nature will take care of the THC content. What Rand Corps also forgot was that many of the people that use pot are the disabled who are on a fixed income. Those people under the current system have to pay too much for pot. Money they can't afford but because medicare or medical does not cover the cost, the pot clubs profit at their expense.

          By legalizing pot parents of people with disability will have the blessing of the State to grow pot for their loved ones instead of watching them pay exuberant prices at the clubs. Clubs like to add that they give people on fixed incomes a price break but that’s not all the clubs and not all the time.  Many disabled or people with cancer or Aids do not live in a place that has a yard to grow their own pot and often do not have the physical or financial ability to do so: not everyone has a green thumb.  The threat of a Federal Raid can still deter people from growing pot for family or friends.

           The clubs that do provide the discounts provide a limited break. One club gives a daily 10 percent off to fixed income clients and twice a month they get 25 percent off their purchase. The best pot costs $70 to $80 per eighth (by best I mean the pot that takes care of the ailments and that last an hour in between taking in more THC) which means that even with the discount the client on a fixed income pays too much. 
          In other words folks, the disabled are forced to buy the low grade pot and they are the people that need the best pot.  A client will usually come in to buy an eighth of pot, with their discount they will still pay roughly $50.00 for their eighth, three times per month and that means they spent $150 of their SSI money. If pot prices fell eighty percent then this group of clients, who Californians wanted to give access to their medication, would benefit.  Instead of paying $150 every month for pot, they would pay roughly $66.00 every month for the same amount of pot, or they would get it free from people that grew pot for them around the city.  More money in the hands of people means they spend it on other things and the economy corrects itself rather than concentrating so much cash in the hands of the pot clubs.  As of now, if you live in an apartment unless the landlord gives the renter permission to grow marijuana they face eviction. The landlord is afraid of any legal issue that they may have to deal with in the event of a federal raid.

          The idea that the THC content is going to be regulated down is counter to the idea that it is pot that is helping many people that are truly in need and the compassion of Californians.  Lets be honest, there are many stoners, able-bodied individuals that benefited after prop 215 past.  The campaign used “Compassion” for those that suffered from cancer, AIDS, and pain from disabilities to sell the proposition to voters. The campaign for prop 215 urged citizens to have compassion and the clubs opened up their doors with the idea of providing that compassion but what happened was something else.

         What happened was (with the exception of one club owner in Oakland) that mostly, able-bodied citizens benefited while the disabled community was left paying high prices for pot. As far as the owners of pot clubs are concerned everyone is disabled and the clients that get into the clubs represent that ideology. The clubs have this ideology because, there are not that many severely disabled clients to sustain the profits that the clubs want, as long as people have to buy pot from them, the prices stay high, the state can tax those greater sales and they make millions.

          Even if pot is legalized the clubs will make money becase not everyone wants to grow and process their own pot,just like peaple in California don't like growing their own grapes to make their own wine. But some people will grow their own and those are the people we want to help. The compassion that you, as a voter had in mind when you voted for proposition 215 in the late 90s,  is still needed.  By voting yes on prop 19, what you will be doing is giving relatives of the disabled, (relatives who do not like violating laws), the room to feel comfortable about helping a loved one and will grow pot in their yards. A yes vote on prop 19 brings the price of pot down for the disabled and others on fixed incomes and puts that money back into the economy and not just in the hands of the pot clubs. Yes, on prop 19, gives parents and relatives peace of mind because they know that the pot their loved one is smoking did not finance drug cartels or gang members but was grown by their hands.
         There is no way of verifying where the pot that the clubs sell comes from, there is no independent verification that happens, no regulators or grow house inspectors. Sellers drive to the pot clubs and sell them their pot or the clubs just grow it themselves. What often happens is that clubs and growers will shake the THC off of the plant before selling the pot to make the Hash they sell out those same clubs. Not all the THC falls off but the plant losses a great deal of potency. The clients are being sold pot that smells good, looks good but the benefits of the pot only last a short time creating a cycle where the client has to buy more often. The disabled do not have the funds to feed this marketing meat grinder, they need their medication and they do not need it watered down. By advocating or accepting that a tax be laid on THC, leadership would be manipulating the prescription for the client instead of the medical doctor.

Vote yes and end the abuse of the disabled by the pot clubs and the state.
.
Rafael Buelna
Good luck Democrats